Raf

Well, I'm stumped on the first and fourth songs.

The third one is "Come and Go With Me," I think. I can definitely hear it in my head. And everytime I think of it, I picture the establishing credits at the beginning of a bunch of episodes of Happy Days.

HCW: There are two separate items to consider. First, did Wierwille lift other people's ideas? Sure he did. No one's arguing he didn't. Is that plagiarism? Agreed, the answer is no (otherwise, I'm guilty of plagiarism for writing about Wierwille's plagiarism when John Juedes beat me to that subject by decades. Second, did Wierwille take other people's writings and lift them, word for word, without attribution? Again, yes. Indisputably. Is that plagiarism? Yes, by definition. Changing a few words or the order of a couple of sentences does not change the fact that this is plagiarism. The problem with bringing the law into it is that, again by definition, you bring lawyers into it, and they're not interested int he truth. They're only interested in defending their clients against the legal consequences of their actions. For example, you're deaf and dumb (that is, stupid), if you don't know that Vanilla Ice lifted Queen's "Under Pressure" for his hit "Ice Ice Baby." It's undeniable. Except in court, where Vanilla Ice won. Bravo for Vanilla Ice, but anyone with two working ears knows the work was lifted. In musical cases of sampling, the original work is often credited in the jacket or liner notes or whatever they call the booklet that comes with CDs these days. Few pretend they wrote what they're sampling. Even Billy Joel credited Beethoven with writing some of the music for "This Night," and there was no threat of copyright infringment there. Wierwille, by contrast, pretended he wrote the answer to question 8 in RTHST, when anyone with two working eyes can see Stiles wrote it first, and Wierwille just changed a word here and there. The fact that no one sued, etc, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means no one sued for it. Another point, as I hinted at earlier: Plagiarism is not automatically copyright infringement. But even if the copyright has run out on a published work, lifting it without attribution is still plagiarism. That's why you don't see "The Iliad, by Raf" on the shelf at Barnes and Noble. I didn't write The Iliad. If I put out "The Iliad" under my name, I would not be violating copyright law, but I would be committing plagiarism. The reason plagiarism is wrong is not that it's a copyright infringement. it's just wrong because it is wrong. It's lying. It's dishonesty. It's puffing itself up. It demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Be nice, Larry. I found the reference. It was in JCOP, acknowledgments (p. xiii-xv, first edition, seventh printing). Wierwille says he did a bunch of research over the years into the subject of JCOP, but had not organized it. He gave the task to Walter Cummins in the 70s to check Wierwille's research "thoroughly and critically." After Cummins had done a bunch of work on it, Wierwille laid it all out to the research team in 1974. "From this seminar a working manuscript was developed, the embryo of this book." Note that he uses the passive voice, "a manuscript was developed," and not the active "I developed a manuscript," indicating a collaborative effort. In 1978, there's another seminar "to again study and refine previous research." The wording there again indicates collaborative effort (Wierwille does not need to hold a seminar for other people if he's the only one who's going to be studying and refining the research). Then he goes into specific people and contributions made, and concludes with this paragraph: "As is evident, this book is truly the result of a large team effort with years of research, study, checking, and rechecking. Others besides those named above have been consulted and have assisted in the production of this work. To all who have contributed to Jesus Christ Our Passover out of their love for God and for the accuracy of His Word, I am most thankful and grateful. Of course, the final contents are my responsibility." So what do we make of this? Well, WordWolf's post on the subject, in my opinion, almost certainly understates Wierwille's participation in this process. WordWolf writes: Zero percent? WordWolf, you're either exaggerating or wrong. Let's look at it logically: The research team isn't going to embark on this project without Wierwille's prior teachings as some kind of framework. Looking at the acknowledgments of JCOP, we can explore two conflicting presumptions. First, Wierwille is being open and forthcoming. Second, Wierwille is lying. Let's first take the view that he's telling the truth: He did teach more than once on various aspects of the last week of Jesus' life. He goes to Cummins and says "organize all this stuff, please." Cummins does it and gives it back to Wierwille. Wierwille then presents it to the research team with orders to develop a manuscript. The team gets a bunch of stuff done and Wierwille either is or is not an active part of the process of developing the manuscript (his account is unclear on the nature of his involvement). A second weeklong seminar is held, either bringing in more members of the research team or giving the "big picture" to the same members of the team, many of whom presumably workd on part of the project but few of whom had worked on "all" of it. Now we're going to have reassignments and people checking each other based on the big picture. Research meetings are held sporadically from 1978 to 1980, now with people having developed specialties in their areas of study and hammering out the book into its final or near final form. Even by Wierwille's account, his active participation appears to have diminished by this point. He doesn't even credit himself with primary responsibility of editing the manuscript (his daughter gets that credit). His closing line, however (the final contents are my responsibility) indicates strongly that he was not absent from the process, as he's not going to accept "responsibility" for the final product without reading, providing feedback and giving his final stamp of approval to the contents. Now let's assume he's lying. It wasn't Wierwille's idea. It was Cummins's idea. And Wierwille liked it. So Cummins puts a bunch of work together, careful to take Wierwille's previous teachings into account and explaining any disagreements, and teaches Wierwille, who studies it enough to make a presentation in 1974 to the research staff. The staff, without further input from Wierwille, sets about creating the manuscript, and they hold seminars in 1978, 1979 and 1980: the seminars are primarily for each other, with Wierwille present. During this process, Wierwille gives his feedback, but is otherwise sitting back having a drambuie and seducing the wives of the researchers. At the end of the process, Wierwille reads it, likes it, and puts his name on it. With either interpretation, you have Wierwille's prior "research" and presentations as the framework. The research staff fleshes it out, develops and refines the manuscript. Wierwille is in on the process but is neither writing nor directly leading it (that responsibility goes to Cummins). Big collaborative effort, not matter how you slice it. Wierwille's level of involvement is arguable, but what's clear either way is that he is not the primary collector of the information, nor is he the primary writer. He may or may not have played a strong active role in developing the big picture. The acknowledgments of JCOPS indicates a similar process, except in that case Wierwille did not say anything about the final contents being his responsibility (which I don't read anything into).

WordWolf and I are, in fact brothers. We just have different mothers. And different fathers. But other than that, we're brothers. What we are not, I must say, is the same person. Before I join in my brother's complaint about the removal of the word "Christ" from that verse in Philippians, can I ask whether it appears in the Greek?

"Madam, could you tell us what happened?" "Yes. I was leaving the store and outside there was this big fight goin on, and people was arguin and yellin and then they pulled out they guns." "And Ma'am, were you shot in the fracas?" "No, sir. I was shot between the belly button and the fracas." *** "Okay, suspect number one, step forward and say 'Gimme all the money, tens and twenties and fifties only.'" "Umm, Gimme all your tens and your twenties and only fifty." "Thank you. Number two, step forward and say 'Gimme all the money, tens and twenties and fifties only.'" "I want all your tens and twenties. And your fifties, too. Now!" "Thank you. Number three, step forward and say 'Gimme all the money, tens and twenties and fifties only.'" "But that's not what I said."

Born and raised. But South Florida now.

8 million people are out of their minds?

Definitely not. but thanks for checking. I'll try to find it tonight.

We make judgments on things that require judgment. We make observations on things that don't require judgment. You may judge the sky to be blue, but to me, that's merely an observation, not a judgment. I think it was Flags of Iwo Jima, or something like that. Look, the perspective of the Japanese soldiers is an unexplored part of history. But it is not up to your judgment to determine whether the U.S. and the Japanese militaries were opponents during World War II. That's not judgment or perspective. That's history. We fought the Japanese. Just like it's history that there was a collaborative effort to put some of Wierwille's books together. Not disputable. No one's arguing it. There's an old saying: you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. Challenge my opinions all you want. But that's not what you're doing here. You're challenging facts, which itself is fine. If you need more proof, good luck finding it. I don't. I think it's fairly established. Not at all. But I think it's an unnecessary waste of time. "Is there a law of believing"? is arguable, and a judgment call, and worthy of debate. "Is the color of the jacket of 'Jesus Christ is Not God' yellow"? is not arguable, and wrangling over it is a waste of time. My condolences. A word search depends on inputting the correct word. Crack open the books if you're really going to look for the comment, rather than declaring it to not be there. It's definitely there. The only thing I question right now is my memory and characterization of the context. Try a word search of "debt" and "responsibility." Maybe "contents" as well. I'm trying to remember the exact words, but I cannot.

Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here. This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it. Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for. Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process. You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out. But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility). Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein. You mistook my paraphrase for Juedes's words. Actually, Juedes's words were: "Use of a writing team expedites larger volumes and makes possible deeper treatments of a topic. However, to conform to the rules of scholarly practice, Wierwille should have listed himself as the general editor of these works, rather than author. One is left with the impression that the writing was done by him." My paraphrase was less absolute, reflective of the fact that while I see his point, I don't see it as the huge infraction he makes it out to be. WTH: Once again, I do not have time or patience to educate your seared conscience about what is and what isn't plagiarism. Arguing with you on the subject is like trying to argue the existence of the color blue to a blind man. Your stubborn unwillingness to see what happened and your decision to subject whether it happened to an arbitrary test does not impress me. I do not allege Wierwille plagiarized. I recognize it. It happened.

Would have to know what was considered profanity in his day. "Hypocrite" is unlikely to be considered profanity. Same with whited sepulchre. But I don't know either for a fact. I would hesitate to put it in the same category as the foul language LCM used. One is an accusation against character; the other a metaphor (or a simile. I don't have the verse handy). Then translation is an issue as well. I could see how someone could translate something literally and strip it of its profanity (sort of like calling someone an anus when "the original" had the word a******.

"Tell us everything! Everything!" "Everything. OK! I'll talk! In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max's toupee and I glued it on my face when I was Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog... When my mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then they served lunch I got nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me out... But the worst thing I ever done - I mixed a pot of fake puke at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, t-t-then, I made a noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa - and then I dumped it over the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was horrible, all the people started getting sick and throwing up all over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life." "I'm beginning to like this kid, Ma!" **** "That's what I said, booty traps." ***** "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."

Trust John S as much as you want or don't want. But put all these things together: Undisputed article about how the books were put together. Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team. Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books. The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works. VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it). The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier). I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.

Not a big deal. If you write two posts in quick succession, they appear as one post. Not having been present at the time the photo was taken, and not being a member of the research staff, I don't know. But you seem to be taking a poster's shorthand (they wrote the book and slapped his name on the cover) too literally. If I may presume to speak for my friend here, no one is suggesting Wierwille wasn't involved in the "writing" of the book. I'm an editor. In my line of work, people write quite a bit, and I have very strong input into how the final work will appear. I make suggestions, corrections, deletions, additions, etc. But the actual writing of the articles comes from writers, not from me. My job is both easier and harder: try to spot flaws in logic or gaps in presentation, etc. In the end, it's the writer's name, not mine, that appears on the article. It appears to me, based on my understanding of what people have said, that the process with VPW's books was similar, except that in the end the book ends up with his name on the cover rather than the writer/writers. In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint. Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.

A couple of things I noticed in this renewed discussion. First, it's common knowledge that the books JCOP and JCOPS were more collaborative efforts than works of VPW authorship. If you need corroboration on this, give John Schoenheit a call. Seriously, just call him. Check out the STFI website for the number. Second, I am not aware of any accusations of plagiarism in those books, seeing as both were heavily footnoted. So the idea that the editorial team, not VPW, was guilty of plagiarism in those cases is without merit: those books are the ones where you're least likely to find examples of plagiarism. Larry, since you're not disputing the presence of plagiarism in VPW's writings, it's unnecessary to prove it. So I thank you for that. It was never stated by WW or anyone else that this editorial-collaborative process is true of all of VPW's books. RTHST and ADAN were Wierwille books, and the plagiarized content in those books is much heavier. JCING gets an asterisk for two reasons. First, I'm not aware of any plagiarism (with the possible exception of recycled body-soul-spirit stuff that may or may not fall into that category), and second, it does have an extensive bibliography, though it was published separately for some reason I still can't fathom. In other words, the more direct input VPW had in the writing of a book, the more likely you are to find examples of plagiarism in it. WW, I don't see Larry as trying to deny plagiarism. I think he's struggling to understand your point with the editorial collaborative process. The point of a question is not always to level an accusation or play "gotcha." It's often to spark a discussion or bring out the answer. The problem I see is that Larry interpreted you as saying these collaborative efforts were the case with ALL of VPW's books, which would exonerate him of a direct plagiarism charge. But since he's misunderstanding what you said, it's leading him to make statements that are untrue (that it was the team, not VPW, who plagiarized). But his statements are extensive questions, and the answer to them is that VPW wrote some stuff without the team and the team wrote some stuff for which Wierwille served essentially as editor (though credited as "author"). This make sense to anyone? This article has a good breakdown of three types of Wierwille writings: transcribed sermons, actual writings, and collaborative efforts: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm

Spider-man 2

Actually, 11 million people died. Six million were Jews.

Well now, THAT made it easy.

Oldiesman asked me to cite sources for this last year. My reply was rude, and I (belatedly) apologize. Since that time, this has been posted on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe Hope it helps.

WTH, My post was over a year ago. I am choosing not to revisit that post just to satisfy the curiosity of a dumbs*** like you. And no, I do not feel a need to "prove" to you that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. I do not feel the need to "prove" to you that George Washington was the first president of the U.S. or that man landed on the moon. If you are too dumbs*** to find that information for yourself, I'm not wasting the time you should have invested in grade school.

Yup. Tom is required. Using Judi Dench for M has become standard procedure on this thread, no? Besides, the alternative is "The DenchPyre Strikes Bach," which, I believe, has not been made into a movie yet.

Scientifically speaking, the name of our sun is Sol. Sol. Lid. Missy Gold (didn't anyone here watch Benson?). DOOOOJ!!!!!!

My thoughts: he learned from two places. 1. His teacher. 2. the god he served.